T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 1 洛杉矶联合学区总监27日在质疑教师终身职和年资制的审判中作证表示，该学区聘用一
些教师严重失职，但是开除他们的费用超过100万元，而且耗时可能超过十年。
戴西(John Deasy)表示，他并不认为教师工作一年半就可获终身职，是足够时间来审核
此人是否称职。
戴西指出，在他2011年4月上任时，洛杉矶联合学区教育委员会就采纳他的建议，展开
开除一名教师的程序。通常这种案例花费25万元到45万元，需时一到二年才能完成。
但是最近两宗开除教师案件耗时更久，而且经过上诉后，每宗案子花费超过100万元。
学校委员会必须考虑开除教师的花费，也要考虑上诉的额外费用。这些费用剥夺学区聘
用教师和其他职员的能力，而预算是有限的。
戴西说，另外要考虑人才成本，也就是校长离开学校参与处分教师的程序是否值得。很
多校长都表示，开除过程的代价太高，他们不愿再参与。戴西又认为，洛杉矶联合学区
有一些教师失职，并不证明该学区管理不当。
英文的报道：
Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Dr. John Deasy testified
against the current hiring and termination statutes in thehighly anticipated
Vergara vs. California case, saying that administrators are not given
enough time or enough data to properly make decisions relating to tenure
employment.
Deasy outlined the process for evaluating teachers in their first two years
of employment, and explained that administrators have to evaluate both
competence as a teacher and evidence of growth and potential within a period
of 13 months. According to Deasy, tenure decisions are made in January of a
teacher's second year and approved in February.
"In the very best of circumstances, we have one year of data from the pupils
with which the teachers worked with," Deasy said. "There is no way this is
a sufficient amount of time to make, in my opinion, an incredibly important
judgment."
He also said that "in a very bizarre twist in California," tenure decisions
are made before teachers move completely through the support system that is
in place to help new teachers improve.
Deasy's testimony is an essential component to the plaintiff's argument that
California's process of awarding teachers tenure-effectively guaranteeing
employment for the rest of their lives-increases the chances of allowing
ineffective teachers to become permanent fixtures in California classrooms.
The testimony then moved to the laws that lay out the process for firing a
tenured teacher, which Deasy claimed was extremely lengthy--one case took
nearly ten years--and expensive, both economically (the average cost per
case is between $250,000 and $450,000) and in relation to what he called "
human capital."
"It is documented that principals need days and days away from the district
in preparation for a dismissal hearing or days like today where they have to
testify," Deasy said. "There are interviews I've conducted with principals
and administrators that talk about personal and professional difficulty in
moving through this process and in more than one occasion with a principal
that would think twice before going through this process again."
The nine plaintiffs ranging in both age and geographic location were in
attendance, and some spoke at a press conference during the lunch break.
Holding a copy of "Dracula" in her hand, eighth grader Julia Macias
described why she is fighting to change the hiring and termination statutes
in California that she and nine other students say are potentially harmful
to students in public schools across the state.
"I believe that kids deserve a good education," she said. "In elementary
school I had quite a few bad teachers. They lowered my test scores and they
lowered my self-esteem as well."
Opening statements for the Vergara vs. California case began with the
plaintiff outlining their argument against the state's current system of
tenure and its long, costly process of terminating ineffective educators.
Lead attorney Ted Boutrous broke the case into three areas of interest: the
"last in, first out" (LIFO), the permanent employment and dismissal statutes
.
"The system forces administrators to put people that everyone would agree
should not be in the classrooms, and that hurts kids every single day,"
Boutrous said at the press conference following the morning session.
According to the plaintiff, the statutes don't give enough time for
administrators to fully evaluate teachers before offering permanent
employment, and that the system makes it nearly impossible to fire teachers
in the bottom five percent of effectiveness evaluations. Additionally, the
LIFO statute mandates that layoffs be done according to seniority, not
teacher effectiveness.
All of these problems are reasons why the plaintiffs believe the current
statues go against the constitutional rights of California citizens to a
quality education.
For example, Boutrous said, one teacher was recently laid off despite
earning Teacher of the Year solely because she had been teaching the fewest
amounts of years. Even if a school wanted to terminate a teacher based on
employment (a rare occurrence, according to the plaintiff), it would take
years and cost the state thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In other words, an older ineffective teacher does not have to worry about
losing his job, and even if administrators want to fire him they probably
won't because the process is too arduous and costly.
The defense argued in their statements that the statutes in question shouldn
't be judged on their constitutionality, but instead be dealt with in the
legislative branch.
The California Teachers Association and the California Federation of
Teachers say that attacking these statutes infringes on the rights of
teachers, wastes taxpayer money and ultimately not help students. Should the
statutes be changed, they believe that the due process rights of teachers
will be violated. Additionally, they say such changes would make it harder
to find and keep quality teachers in the state.
Deasy’s testimony will continue tomorrow beginning at 9:30 a.m. | l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 2 union就是个毒瘤. 应该象普通公司,at will. | n****g
发帖数: 14743 | 3 有利有弊，弊大于利
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: union就是个毒瘤. 应该象普通公司,at will.
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 4 same shit on the east coast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassignment_centers
"Reassignment centers are holding facilities for New York City Department of
Education, where more than 600 teachers accused of misconduct were paid to
work full time doing nothing for months or years at a time while awaiting
resolution of their cases. Among teachers they are referred to as rubber
rooms."
there were stories that teachers with misconduct charges run their own
online business in the rubber rooms while drawing full salary from the city.
【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 洛杉矶联合学区总监27日在质疑教师终身职和年资制的审判中作证表示，该学区聘用一
: 些教师严重失职，但是开除他们的费用超过100万元，而且耗时可能超过十年。
: 戴西(John Deasy)表示，他并不认为教师工作一年半就可获终身职，是足够时间来审核
: 此人是否称职。
: 戴西指出，在他2011年4月上任时，洛杉矶联合学区教育委员会就采纳他的建议，展开
: 开除一名教师的程序。通常这种案例花费25万元到45万元，需时一到二年才能完成。
: 但是最近两宗开除教师案件耗时更久，而且经过上诉后，每宗案子花费超过100万元。
: 学校委员会必须考虑开除教师的花费，也要考虑上诉的额外费用。这些费用剥夺学区聘
: 用教师和其他职员的能力，而预算是有限的。
: 戴西说，另外要考虑人才成本，也就是校长离开学校参与处分教师的程序是否值得。很
| m********8
发帖数: 7463 | 5 你们这些黑5类
连教育你们孩子的老师们，都不给一点点安全感，让他们每天在恐惧中上课，怎么教育
孩子？
都TMD太狠了。
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: union就是个毒瘤. 应该象普通公司,at will.
|
|
